This blog began in 2007, focusing on anthrax vaccine, and later expanded to other public health and political issues. The blog links to media reports, medical literature, official documents and other materials.

Friday, February 27, 2009

from an article by Debora MacKenzie, who has been knowledgeably reporting on anthrax and bioterrorism at the New Scientist for more than a decade:

. . . Next the team developed highly sensitive tests to screen all 1072 samples for four of the mutations. Eight samples had all four. One came from a flask labelled RMR-1029 that Ivins was responsible for at USAMRIID. The other seven came from cultures taken from that flask, only one of which was not located at USAMRIID. So while these findings show the attack spores came from one of these cultures, the FBI has gone further in concluding the attack came directly from the RMR-1029 flask.

Another question is how the attacker turned the water-based slurry of spores in the flask to the fine, dry powder in the letters. . .

7 comments:

That ‘patents’ item in the anthrax mailingsby margieburns on Mon 04 Aug 2008

Following up on that ‘patents’ item in the LATimes, suggesting a possible profit in future from patents on anthrax vaccines: True, Cui bono is always one avenue in investigating.

But . . . Ivins is not looking good for this angle, though.

Take a look:

Checking patent office records for the name Bruce Ivins, we find that Dr. Ivins has been named 11 times as a supplier of anthrax to other researchers for use in vaccines, most recently in two patent applications for nanoemulsion vaccines on July 31, 2008. The identical boilerplate language found in the seven patent applications and the four patents runs as follows:

Just to point out the obvious—little in this language suggests that Ivins was regarded as deranged or a danger to himself or others, by professional colleagues. In fact, nothing in this language suggests same.

The lead researcher named in all of the 11 patent applications and/or successful patents is James R. Baker, Jr., of Ann Arbor, Michigan, mostly in association with scientist Tarek Hamouda of Michigan and Milan; sometimes with scientist Anna Bielinska of Michigan; and less often with additional researchers.

For those of you who want eye-glazing detail at home, the dates and status of these entries:

Does Sandia even know how the samples were prepared? Compare Stewart et al's 1980 publication, discussing in great detail how the samples were prepared, since the preparation method could have impacted the analytical data.

It's my understanding that Sandia refused to accept any spores what were still viable. I don't think they have anything like a Level 4 biosafety lab. So, spores would have to be killed with radiation or other means before being sent to Sandia.

To save time, the FBI may also have mounted the spores according to Sandia specifications.

But, I can see that if you believe that everyone at the FBI is evil and involved in sinister activities, you would see this as tainting the evidence - even though all chain of custody procedures were followed.

It's not a question of believing, as you apparently do, that everyone at the FBI is 100% competent in all fields; would never overlook even the smallest piece of exculpatory evidence; and always reveals every piece of evidence that doesn't support their position to the public.

Instead, it's a matter of good science, as you would have known had you bothered to read my original post. Sample preparation is quite important as discussed in detail by Stewart et al. The reason that Stewart et al went into that discussion wasn't because they wanted to overcome public beliefs that they were evil, or some such crazy notion, as you imply. It's just a matter of good science.

Since we're talking about evidence to be used in court, the proper procedure is for the FBI scientists to prepare the samples and for Sandia to do the analysis.

The FBI and DOJ would want to make sure that all samples were prepared using identical methods and proper procedures. And the only way they can be sure of that is to have the samples prepared by FBI scientists.

Ed Lake wrote: Since we're talking about evidence to be used in court, the proper procedure is for the FBI scientists to prepare the samples and for Sandia to do the analysis.

Well that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the testing lab is using appropriate procedures, both to prepare and test, they can prove that in court. Using the FBI lab plus another lab only complicates things, adds more witnesses that can be cross-examined and may admit to a mistake, and just in general increases the likelihood of problems.

As to your other comment that "the FBI may also have mounted the spores according to Sandia specifications" you are making totally unsupported assumptions (as you delight in accusing others of doing). Go listen to the video again, nothing even remotely suggests that the samples preprepared by the FBI were prepared acccording to Sandia specifications. Since Sandia hasn't said otherwise, one can only assume that they didn't supply the specifications, and may not even know how the samples were prepared.

Indeed, improper sample preparation may be the underlying cause of silicon content diversity in some groups of spores, (apparently recently discovered by Sandia).

After swimming with dolphins at Key Largo, they checked me out at the edge of the pool

Visiting a Bhutanese Dzong, the regional seat of both government and religion (and a fort for good measure)

Why am I blogging?

Because life is meant to be lived! The left side of this blog has photos of some peak experiences. And the right side contains information about which I am passionate.

Too many peoples' lives are characterized by lack of authenticity, and fear of acknowledging and expressing their true nature. Employees cannot say what they think at work, and in the corporate system we must squish ourselves into square holes when we are round pegs. We thus lose touch with our souls, becoming cogs in a soulless, profit-driven machine.

The culture of political correctness has meant, in medicine, that we ignore how the foundations of our science are being undermined by commercialism. Clinical data generated or presented by the manufacturers of drugs, vaccines and devices cannot be trusted: there are hundreds of studies proving this. But this fraudulent information continues to be the only data informing the approval of vaccines, drugs and devices.

Unless scrupulous ethical conduct is demanded of physicians and biological scientists, our lack of meaningful standards will carry the medical-pharmaceutical system down the path of increasing irrelevance.

Medicine and its tools need to be affordable. The current medical-industrial milieu, characterized by contempt for science, countless ways for insiders to achieve wealth due to failure of good governance, and regulatory agency-to-industry revolving doors, has ushered in stratospheric pricing... further kicking us down that path to irrelevance.

Why is our new health care plan a giveaway to health industries instead of to health consumers? Why won't it cover all Americans? Why was the "public option" never an option for the Obama administration? Why did the promised Trump health plan evaporate the moment he was elected?

So many of our leaders carry a heavy burden of mendacity and avarice. If they instead got in touch with their own souls (perhaps by exposure to the natural world), or made their decisions by maximizing the amount of good that results, our leaders might find real meaning and value in their lives.

Until that happens, the only way to straighten out the current mess is to demand accountability and impose penalties on unethical/dishonest leaders. Both political parties enjoy bounteous hors d'oeuvres from Pharma's table, making it unlikely the existing political "process" will provide relief--as we've seen in the demoralizing healthcare reform drama.

Until then, I'll continue to "call it as I see it" in this blog -- working and living the way life should be, in rural Maine, far from the centers of power.

Ellen Byrne has created several designs encapsulating aspects of the FBI's ridiculous case against Bruce Ivins. They can be purchased on T-shirts and coffee mugs. All proceeds will be donated to the the Frederick County chapter of the American Red Cross, a favored charity of Dr. Bruce Ivins.